https://www.zerohedge.com/political/harr...-pollsters

“Our numbers are much less rosy than what you're seeing in the public," said Future Forward super PAC president Chauncey McLean said during a Monday event hosted by the University of Chicago Institute of Politics.

Critics point out that many polls have been sampling a disproportionately smaller share of Republican voters compared to exit poll data from the 2020 presidential election. The result, they say, is a misleading "phantom advantage" for Ms. Harris. According to them, this skewed sampling could be a strategic move to boost enthusiasm and fundraising for Ms. Harris' campaign.

Trump campaign strategist Jim McLaughlin echoed this sentiment, stating, "They undersample Republicans" intentionally "to tamp down support and donations for Trump." He added that the polls are part of a larger effort to create a narrative that favors Harris.

Polls smolls

Debates shemates

Prison smigeon

Do I need to remind you guys? If it looks like a sure Trump win they will not miss next time.

What Baris is referring to here about Nate is that today Nate threw out a pollster from Activote. Last month Activote had Harris +2. Yesterday they had Trump +1. Today Nate said he was going to exclude them from his model.

& here comes the steady flow of misinformation from the Trump camp with the end game of challenging the vote if its not favorable…

(09-03-2024 04:34 PM)CardinalJim Wrote:  Alyssa Farah Griffin is another swamp creature who knows she’ll never get another job in DC if Trump wins.

Exactly. Her family runs that kook website World Net Daily.

I'm trying to figure out what Future Forward super PAC president Chauncey McLean's motive is to make a statement like

"Our numbers are much less rosy than what you're seeing in the public"

Is it a fundraising ploy? A message to the Harris campaign? An attempt to complacent volunteers?

(09-03-2024 07:23 PM)CardinalJim Wrote:  I'm trying to figure out what Future Forward super PAC president Chauncey McLean's motive is to make a statement like

"Our numbers are much less rosy than what you're seeing in the public"

Is it a fundraising ploy? A message to the Harris campaign? An attempt to complacent volunteers?

The prime time Fox shows are saying the same thing tonight. Graham and Watters.

(09-03-2024 07:23 PM)CardinalJim Wrote:  I'm trying to figure out what Future Forward super PAC president Chauncey McLean's motive is to make a statement like

"Our numbers are much less rosy than what you're seeing in the public"

Is it a fundraising ploy? A message to the Harris campaign? An attempt to complacent volunteers?

They dont want a repeat of 2016. If Harris has a chance, its a very small chance, where a number of states are going to be decided by a sliver. If they act like she's got it going on, dem voters wont get out and vote. In 2016, they believe Clinton could have won the election if they hadnt told everybody for 6 months she had it in the bag.

(09-03-2024 07:06 PM)Marc Mensa Wrote:  & here comes the steady flow of misinformation from the Trump camp with the end game of challenging the vote if its not favorable…

And?…..

(09-03-2024 07:06 PM)Marc Mensa Wrote:  & here comes the steady flow of misinformation from the Trump camp with the end game of challenging the vote if its not favorable…

Misinformation

(09-03-2024 07:23 PM)CardinalJim Wrote:  I'm trying to figure out what Future Forward super PAC president Chauncey McLean's motive is to make a statement like

"Our numbers are much less rosy than what you're seeing in the public"

Is it a fundraising ploy? A message to the Harris campaign? An attempt to complacent volunteers?

1. As Trump team stated it was to depressed Trumps vote [on Twitter there has been a lot of infighting how Trump is losing] and this also helps her raise a massive amount in fundraisers; donors like winners so they are lied to about the real numbers of the race

2. McLean represent congressional candidates. They have to be honest to down ballot candidates that it’s not so rosy because the fake polls are giving candidates a mirage effect that’s not real and they could lose if they feel overconfident

(09-03-2024 04:16 PM)TripleA Wrote:  OTOH, maybe her internal polling is getting so bad that she decides she HAS to do the debate.

Or, that they have nothing to lose and hope for the best. You know, like when G5 football teams go against Top 10 ranked teams in their home fields. They'll try Boise St. trick plays and hope they can score.

(09-03-2024 06:50 PM)Was SoMs Eagle Wrote:  Polls smolls

Debates shemates

Prison smigeon

Do I need to remind you guys? If it looks like a sure Trump win they will not miss next time.

nuts don't need no stinkin' reminder (nor badges, amigo) ...

@>270EVsBlueBakedInn(681) or moo-moo-chelle (aka big mike) if all else fails by Aug. 22, 2024 ... (AM) … #7*states30counties

(09-03-2024 03:21 PM)shere khan Wrote:  

(09-03-2024 03:17 PM)TripleA Wrote:  

(09-03-2024 03:09 PM)hburg Wrote:  The debate will be a big blow to Kamala. Like I said before they crowned Kamala too early.

Sent from my SM-G988U using Tapatalk

I don't think it happens. Kamala is dumb, but all of her handlers aren't. No way she risks blowing up whatever chance she has. And she'll blame it on Trump, then keep hiding from the press until the election.

Thr debate is an msm ambush..remember these folks eill do snything

(09-03-2024 07:23 PM)CardinalJim Wrote:  I'm trying to figure out what Future Forward super PAC president Chauncey McLean's motive is to make a statement like

"Our numbers are much less rosy than what you're seeing in the public"

Is it a fundraising ploy? A message to the Harris campaign? An attempt to complacent volunteers?

I do love that they chose that name, Future Forward.

That was the name of the Pac for Senator Brackens in the Castle TV series. He was the evil murderer in the series who got started with bribery and then continued to fund his campaigns with drug money. Future Forward was the money laundering of the drug money.

(09-03-2024 04:31 PM)BigTigerMike Wrote:  There’s a reason Kamala is campaigning in typically safe
Dem states- NH, MN and VA

Something something Hillary something something Wisconsin something something Michigan something something Pennsylvania......

And as to the numbers in this "poll," I believe this is just a forecast of the percentages of chance to win calculated with respect to what this site feels will happen in the coming weeks...it's not actually direct polling of voters. IIRC, Harris still leads, albeit slightly, in most all the battleground state polls currently.

It's obvious that the "momentum" has subsided. And the truth is nobody is leading, because nobody has voted. These are all projections. If you talk to too many independents in suburban areas, you will get a Harris lead, if you talk to more independents in rural areas, you get a Trump lead.

She will have to do more public interviews and then the debate, which she will have a ton of pressure to do well in.

(09-04-2024 09:22 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(09-03-2024 04:31 PM)BigTigerMike Wrote:  There’s a reason Kamala is campaigning in typically safe
Dem states- NH, MN and VA

Something something Hillary something something Wisconsin something something Michigan something something Pennsylvania......

And as to the numbers in this "poll," I believe this is just a forecast of the percentages of chance to win calculated with respect to what this site feels will happen in the coming weeks...it's not actually direct polling of voters. IIRC, Harris still leads, albeit slightly, in most all the battleground state polls currently.

Is the policy page of her campaign sight still a blank page?

(09-04-2024 09:48 AM)WalkThePlank Wrote:  It's obvious that the "momentum" has subsided. And the truth is nobody is leading, because nobody has voted. These are all projections. If you talk to too many independents in suburban areas, you will get a Harris lead, if you talk to more independents in rural areas, you get a Trump lead.

She will have to do more public interviews and then the debate, which she will have a ton of pressure to do well in.

And that likely is the biggest flaw in this prediction from what I read. It is factoring in that Harris didn't get as big of a convention bounce as candidates normally do so they assume she's not going to win. But her bounce was before the convention where she erased the lead trump had over Biden in most polling. And if you recall, I don't think trump got much of a bounce from his convention either.

But this call for more public interviews is overblown IMO. But I do agree, the debate is critical...assuming people even watch it.